So frankly Mordrak, fuck you buddy for suggesting we're on the same level, we're not. You and Soapy can't seem to listen to what I say without then extending my position into the far reaches of silliness, like me saying gun bans will never work, guns don't make it easier to kill someone etc. Yet you both constantly ignore simple statistics that show clear examples of points, and keep repeating things like "well, more guns must obviously mean more crime" Wrong. "More guns mean more murder." Wrong.
How about this, why don't you clearly state a position, base it on facts, and we can discuss it, rather than coming at me as a boogeyman all the time? I challenge you from the bottom of my Kerry-voting, Obama-voting, loophole-closing, licensing-wanting, training-requiring heart.
I'm more than willing to do a reset, if you would like to bring up a single topic, clearly stated, that you would like to discuss I will gladly engage you in the most honest fashion I can muster.
I guess you're allowed to interpret data, without backing up it some other way but Soapy isn't. Great.
Edit: Get this Houngan, your data is broad, it's not specific. You can't , at least with any legitimacy, keep pointing to the same study that doesn't make the necessary distinctions it would have to make disprove Soapy's hypothesis with regard to handguns.
Last edited by Mordrak; 01-21-2011 at 06:39 PM.
Which hypothesis? Seriously, state it clearly and I'll discuss it, and if we come away with a new understanding, I'll gladly change my mind and thank you for the help. Speak!
There's not much in the way of statistics adjusted for firearm type, and a terrible lack of statistics about the size of the black market. Certainly in the US criminals find it trivial to get their hands on guns whereas in other countries it's harder for them. People who have no business handling a firearm also seem to manage to get legal ones quite often.
I've not seen any sensible alternate hypothesis about why the US murder rate is so high compared to all other comparable countries. It's not a data point you can just handwave away and claim no correlation between gun and handgun ownership and murder rate.
He used as a jumping off point the fact that handguns are overwhelmingly used (or were) in homicides within the US. Secondly, even the data you linked which showed a decline in handgun use in homicides... happens to coincide with an overall drop in homicide rates within the US. While it's not outright support for his point, it reinforces its plausability.
That's why I asked you if you had any statistics for the rate of ownership of handguns over the period in time where we saw the drop in both homicides and handguns used in homicides.
Last edited by Mordrak; 01-21-2011 at 07:18 PM.
If you don't think so, then, imo, you're back to begging the question.
But at least you've finally acknowledged the point and hopefully understand the limitations of the data you are using. Soapy isn't even the first one to bring it up, as Tim Partlett basically said the same thing right before him.
Last edited by Mordrak; 01-22-2011 at 04:03 AM.
My society has made it pretty clear to me that guns are only used to kill, you don't shoot at anything living except for the effect to have it die. You don't shot to injure, you shot to kill, you shot to destroy.
I have certainly no issues with people bearing firearms when they are living in the woods but why is there a need for handguns to exist in a civilized country? You can't shot some deer with a handgun, a handgun is solely made to be able to kill humans at short range.
Also, a functioning phone and an alarm system are certainly better and saver tools for protecting your home and family.
Last edited by Mordrak; 01-22-2011 at 04:26 AM.
Anyway, go here:
Shooting Range Philippsburg
76661 Philippsburg, Am Schießstand 1 (Prolongation of Street “Mittlerer Weg“)
Telefon +49 7256 9243889
And watch a match. If you don't like "toy", how about sporting equipment?
The proliferation of firearms can certainly be reversed with a lot of work. I agree though that it is super unlikely. Anyway the big problem is proliferation into the black market. People buy guns legally and then sell them to third parties, or get them stolen, or get them "stolen", or firearm dealers sell them directly on the black market...
And then it becomes Canada's problem; just to point to one article.
Firearm proliferation can be stopped? Um... Hows that working out for mexico?
Also, the idea that legal gun dealers just sell on the black market is so off.. atf audits on dealers are such a constant thing.. I'm sure it happens, but hardly often or for long before they are caught.
It's just one way the black market gets the guns; and a few bad apples can move a lot of iron. It seems likely the biggest conduit are private individuals but stats again are hard to come by.Also, the idea that legal gun dealers just sell on the black market is so off.. atf audits on dealers are such a constant thing.. I'm sure it happens, but hardly often or for long before they are caught.
So yeah, screw you too.
Here's some suggestions for honest arguments with regard to what would be the necessary multi-pronged approach to reducing gun circulation:
- It's not politically feasible, because of the existence of a significant gun culture.
- It's not economical for the benefit we would receive (or there would be no benefit to reducing gun circulation).
- It would take too long to effectively implement.
- It wouldn't get past lobbyists for the gun industry.
- We'd have to work with our geographical neighbors to implement similar solutions, which may prove difficult if not impossible.
- We need our guns in case we need to revolt or personal defense.
- I like guns and gun culture.
Next time, try one of those, rather than artificially constraining the terms of the debate so you can continue to use shitty rhetoric meant to shut down any attempts at regulation. No one's saying we can wave a magic wand and make guns disappear or we can just tell people to stop using guns while addressing none of the other issues surrounding guns.
And yes, at this point, the genie is out of the bottle is shitty rhetoric because it suggests a permanent futility due to the sheer number of guns. I think that's a faulty premise with which to begin the debate.
Last edited by Mordrak; 01-22-2011 at 02:36 PM.
Whatever man, you've been having your own private argument for a few pages now.
It took pages to get you even to acknowledge the limitations of the study you were citing with regard to Soapy's (and Tim's) point. What a hypocrite.
Tell you what, why don't you state your position, and state what you think my position is, and we'll go from there.